Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society, and that taxes are omnipotently levied against the activity. Conmen (Enron; Bernie Madoff) and people who squander inherited wealth (trust-fund babies; Paris Hilton) arguably have a negative contribution to society, but pay plenty in taxes. Does their existence as high-value tax base truly outweigh a kind, loving person who had the misfortune to born poor, and not get the same opportunities in life as someone who's family donated a building to Harvard?

Capitalism is unable to recognize the value of lots of kinds of work (that is often done by women), especially when those performing the work aren't the kind to charge for it. Just because work is being given away for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Capitalism has some shortcomings and one of them is that it's unable to support certain business models that provide value to the world.

Wikipedia manages to exist on the largess of wealthy benefactors, and a ton of volunteer labor. Are those volunteers a "net burden" on society?

> Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society,

If not the market, then what? Why do you think resource allocation scheme X would be better than the market overall? Without prices, we're left with the people best at being loud demagogues deciding the application of society's limited resources. Is that really better? Has it ever worked to produce prosperity or happiness?

Yes, economic value reflects social value, and chasing profit produces social good. Every time somebody's rejected this principle, he's produced poverty and death.